Vol. 1084 No. 2
231. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he is aware of the issue around accessing and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme; if consideration has been given to providing the benefit of the diesel rebate scheme as a direct cut on excise on diesel at the pumps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26925/26]
Obviously, the priority questions were submitted before the announcements last week, which the Government was forced to make by people pressure and by parties in opposition like Sinn Féin, but we know that half measures do not cut it. Still we see so many people, particularly hauliers, who are locked out of the rebate scheme. There are reasons for this, such as if they are transporting livestock, their own product or if they do not have a haulage licence. There is a serious issue with cash flow. I have argued time and again with the Taoiseach that the direct reduction needs to be given at the fuel pumps. That would benefit not only hauliers but also everybody else who relies on petrol and diesel and who are paying extortionate prices during this time of crisis. Will the Tánaiste finally listen, see sense and actually cut fuel prices to affordable levels at the pumps?
I have looked at this issue in terms of both access and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme. As the Deputy knows, the diesel rebate scheme is a state aid that provides qualifying road haulage and passenger transport operators with a partial repayment of mineral oil tax paid on auto diesel. The scheme operates in accordance with the EU's energy tax directive, as it must, and with the general block exemption regulation on state aid. In 2025, almost €40 million was paid out under the scheme, providing targeted support to the road haulage and passenger transport sectors.
The diesel rebate scheme rate of repayment is linked to the average retail price of auto diesel, based on data from the CSO. A 7.5 cent rebate has applied to all claims over the period from quarter 1 of 2021 to quarter 4 of 2025. In response to the current fuel crisis, I recently increased the repayment cap from 7.5 cent per litre to 12 cent per litre. This enhanced repayment rate applies to claims in respect of fuel purchased from 1 January to 30 June this year.
The Deputy raised a genuinely interesting point regarding the point at which the rebate is applied. I have been looking into this. I am advised by Revenue that the operation of the diesel rebate scheme on a remission basis at the pump is not compatible with the legal basis of the scheme as repayment rates are determined on an ex-post basis. I looked at whether the scheme could be redesigned but, even if the scheme were redesigned, the application of mineral oil tax reductions at the pump to qualifying transport operators would require the introduction of complex real-time validation systems and shift compliance risks to fuel retailers. For these reasons, Revenue considers that improvements are more appropriately focused on administrative efficiencies to lead to faster repayments. Revenue encourages customers to file claims immediately when the period to claim opens, which I believe many do, and to ensure that claims are completed correctly and that supporting documentation is available if requested by Revenue.
Revenue is mindful of the financial impact of the current increase in fuel prices and the importance of the rebate scheme to licensed operators. It will work with claimants who are unable to obtain tax clearance on a case-by-case basis. Where a claimant has tax clearance and yet has some tax liabilities, Revenue will process any claim and offset any refunds against liabilities. I will have another chance to come in but, as is always the case with cash flow issues, it is important that there is engagement with Revenue. I know that Revenue will be constructive in that regard.
The Tánaiste is missing the point here.
I am trying not to.
I do not know if he is doing it deliberately or not. If you cut excise duty directly at the pump, it benefits the hauliers, transport operators and bus companies that need that measure for cash flow, but it also benefits everybody else. It benefits carers, nurses, doctors, teachers, street cleaners and everybody else in society. That is what should be happening here. That is the best way to cut costs for the hauliers, who would then not have to wait three months and deal with more paperwork and red tape as they fill in applications to the rebate scheme. What people are demanding and took to the streets for, although the Tánaiste refused to listen to them, is a cut to excise duty at the pumps. They wanted costs driven down. There is still capacity to do some of that because we are still not at the minimum levels of excise duty on petrol and diesel. A carer who rocks up to the petrol station tomorrow will pay €2.07 per litre. He or she is paying more excise duty on that litre of diesel than is required under EU law. That is a fact and that is wrong. It is wrong at a time of huge surpluses in this State and when the Government now has €4.1 billion extra that it did not expect to have. People are really suffering but the Government is still refusing to listen, refusing to understand and, what is worse, refusing to act appropriately.
I will make a couple of points. We are not refusing to listen and we are certainly not refusing to act. We have brought in one of the largest packages of support in the European Union. That is a statement of fact. That is the right thing to do because our economy enables us to.
Second, I do not say this to be argumentative but, on diesel, the advice available to me is that we have actually gone further than the energy tax directive allows. We have had to write to Europe to seek a derogation in that regard. That is genuinely advice that has been made available to me. We have gone further than we should have under the EU energy tax directive, such is the scale of the challenge around diesel.
Third, I am answering the specific question the Deputy tabled, No. 231, which relates to the diesel rebate scheme. This is a very valuable scheme. Hauliers value it and farm contractors sought it. The sector sees value in the scheme. The Deputy asked me what I thought was a very legitimate question and I am endeavouring to answer it in good faith. He asked whether there is a better way of administering the scheme. The specific question I was asked was whether we should look at trying to provide the benefit of this scheme as a direct cut. The advice available to me suggests that would not be the most effective way to go about it and that it could actually lead to a greater administrative burden.
Cash flow is a real issue and the Deputy is right to highlight it. I have asked the Revenue Commissioners to try to identify further administrative efficiencies to further improve this scheme from a cash flow perspective.
Does the Minister accept that the nurse pulling up to a petrol station, putting diesel into her car and paying €2.07 per litre, the price I was seeing last night, is paying more excise duty on that fuel than is required under EU law? It is a simple question.
Is the Deputy asking about excise duty on petrol or on diesel?
I am asking about diesel. Under European law, the minimum excise duty to be imposed on her diesel is €330 per 1,000 litres. She is paying more than that. That is the reality. The issue here is that the resources are in the State. The Minister knows that. The money is there. The money is there to help people. It is there to help hauliers, nurses and gardaí. It is there to help the people but the Minister is refusing to do that. His head has been seriously stuck in the sand for the past two weeks. People power had to be employed in ways it had never been before to get Deputies Simon Harris and Micheál Martin to wake up and listen. These half jobs are not good enough. Some €2.07 is far too high when it comes on top of everything else, including all of the pressures and the withdrawal of various supports from families last October. That is what the Minister is missing and what he is failing to understand. This question was very simple. The Minister can do this in a different way, which would benefit everybody but he does not want to do it because he is penny-pinching.
We really are not. Significant lessons have been learned from the past number of weeks. The Deputy and I might agree on some and completely and utterly disagree on others. I was disappointed to see his support for blockades. I was not disappointed to see him joining protests. In fact, I would expect him to do so. That is fine in a democracy.
I was disappointed when you threatened them with the Army.
I was genuinely disappointed to see several of the Deputy's colleagues refuse to condemn illegal action. I do think that is genuinely disappointing. We have to pull together and do our best. What I would say to those the Deputy has highlighted in this House, the nurses and those in other professions, is that the actions we have taken are real. There is €750 million worth of measures. The Deputy knows this brief well so he will know that not only will this package have a particular benefit in reducing the price of diesel and petrol compared to what it would have been and do things like extending the fuel allowance period and putting in place a diesel rebate scheme for hauliers and a package for farmers, but that it will also have the effect of reducing the inflation rate by about 0.6%. That is the advice of the chief economist. Although the inflation we will end up seeing in supermarkets will be too high as a result of this war, the rate would have been 0.6% higher were it not for this package. That also has a real and genuine benefit in trying to insulate people. We also have to keep some firepower for the winter. I have no doubt but that the Deputy will, quite rightly, have many ideas on what we should do to help people through a winter challenge. An energy crisis in the winter is even more challenging than one in the summer. This is a balance. I think the step-by-step approach is genuinely the right one.
232. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if his Department has assessed the predicted shortfall in revenue from the recent cuts to the carbon tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28778/26]
Will the Tánaiste give us an account of his Department's assessment of the shortfall in revenue from the deferral of the carbon tax increase?
The estimated cost of delaying the carbon tax increase on home heating fuels until October is €22 million. This represents approximately 2% of the overall carbon tax revenue allocated for expenditure in the last budget, which was over €1.1 billion. While there will be different views and perspectives on the carbon tax - I know the Deputy's view - I will be very clear that the carbon tax remains a core part of Ireland's climate policy, which aims to reach net-zero. The Deputy will agree that the need for society and the economy to decouple from fossil fuel dependence is even more apparent now, given the volatility in the international fuel markets. However, you also have to apply a degree of common sense. I am not suggesting the Deputy would not; I am just saying I had to. When we were limited in what we could do on the likes of home heating oil, allowing a carbon tax increase to proceed would have pushed up costs further. I did not believe that to be the right thing to do at this moment in time.
While we are not discussing it enough, the best way to insulate our economy and society from fuel price shocks is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Carbon tax funds are allocated for expenditure on measures that will achieve this such as the continuation of the national retrofitting programme, investment in community energy efficiency measures and funding for greener farming practices. I reassure the Deputy that the full amount allocated from that sum of just over €1.1 billion in budget 2026 will still be spent on the intended measures. In other words, the €22 million deferral will not come off the climate action fund or other climate measures. It will be met from running a smaller budget surplus. The allocations set out in budget 2026, which were approved by this Oireachtas, remain the voted amounts for the year. This includes carbon tax funding commitments incorporated into the national development plan, which provides medium-term certainty for sectors and communities supported by these measures.
On the evening we voted on the financial resolutions, I noted that the Tánaiste's decision to defer that increase shattered that coalition that had existed in this House across Government and some parts of the Opposition where difficult votes to support the carbon tax had been taken. I genuinely have to ask why. As the Tánaiste pointed out, the value forgone is actually very small in terms of the overall package, €22 million out of €505 million. It is 4.3%. I spoke to a number of Fianna Fáil backbenchers the next day and they made the point that for six years, they had gone out and batted for the carbon tax and the Tánaiste's action had really pulled the rug out from underneath them in terms of the case they were making. By deferring the increase, the Tánaiste has ceded the ground to those who say the carbon tax is the root of all evil, and he has lost that case for that constant expansion of that pool of money for ACRES, the warmer homes scheme and retrofits, and ultimately it has not won the Tánaiste one iota of thanks from the people who have always opposed this particular measure. Again, I have to ask the Tánaiste why he did it.
I do not look for thanks in politics and I certainly do not look for thanks from political opponents. It is not why I do this job. I do look for ways of assisting people and you have to bring the people with you too. While the Deputy obviously supports the carbon tax, I appreciate that many in opposition stand by the carbon tax too and do not engage in populism on this. It is an important form of tax revenue. However, we do have to look at the reality in terms of the cost of a fill of home heating. We had to look at the reality in terms of green diesel. It did not make sense to decide to tell people that we were going to further increase the cost of their home heating oil.
There also needs to be a sense of perspective in relation to this. That decision has not resulted in any reduced amount of money being spent on the climate action fund or on the retrofitting programme or on the fuel allowance because it is €22 million. It is 2% of the total amount that we expect to take in. I would also make the broader point that when the carbon tax was legislated for, I think, in 2020, the war in Ukraine had not happened and the war in Iran had not happened. I support the carbon tax. Some in the Opposition do not and some in the Opposition do; that is fine. However, these are realities in terms of the impact on the energy market and you can believe in a carbon tax and also believe that now might not have been the right time to further increase it.
The Tánaiste has spoken about common sense and it not making sense now to allow these increases to take place but he has to recognise the precedent that he set he it suspended the carbon tax increase because of the blockades in our streets. The Tánaiste has to understand that the people who have seen him bend and break now will anticipate that he will do it again and will look to put that same level pressure on it when it comes to the next set of decisions coming in October of this year.
When it comes to October of this year, can the Tánaiste set out what his starting point is in respect of the carbon tax? Is he committed to continuing to grow that pot of money that is available for ACRES to support farmers, to support the further roll out of the warmer homes scheme and other retrofit schemes, and to have additional money so social protection payments like the fuel allowance can be increased, or is it a wait and see matter? Are we just going to wait and see until October and see what level of pressure is going to deployed against him? Will his common sense mean that he will actually duck the decision again?
I do not think that is a fair portrayal. We have managed as a country to introduce a carbon tax. We have managed to bring in over €1 billion in it. We have managed to legislate for it on a multi-annual basis. We did not bomb Iran. We did not disrupt 20% of the world's energy supply. The Government has to use the levers at its disposal.
If we want to engage in real and meaningful climate action, we have to try to bring people with us, and the centre of Irish politics has to try to bring people with it as well. This measure needs to be seen in the round. It is 2% of the total amount we are expecting to take in carbon tax this year. It does not have an impact in reducing the climate action fund, and all taxation measures - and I say the same no matter what taxation measure I am asked about - are a matter of consideration at the budget. The tax strategy group in my Department looks at all things and I am committed to the carbon tax. I am committed to the legislation behind the carbon tax and committed to the carbon tax growing as part of our climate action in this country. However, I am also committed to looking at how we can assist people with their energy costs in the here and now, and there are some areas where there are limited tools available because there are no other excises on the fuels. Deputy Doherty and I had this debate. Carbon tax was on the kerosene. Some wanted me to reduce it. Instead, I just did not proceed with the increase, and I thought that was a balanced approach.
233. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will consider the maximum removal of excise duty, both carbon and non-carbon, from green diesel, given the vital role of green diesel in primary production like farming and other sectors such as construction; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26926/26]
The Minister steadfastly refused to cut excise duty on green diesel, despite all of the evidence and the knowledge that farmers are under serious pressure. The reason is that the excise duty on green diesel is carbon tax. It is the carbon component. Does the Tánaiste know something? A farmer does not care what it is called. He does not care whether it is excise, carbon or whatever else. He just knows that the price has gone from 97 cent a litre up to €1.80 and, as Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste is refusing to cut it at the pumps. He has the ability today to still support farmers in a way that really matters, right here, right at the pumps, by actually removing carbon tax from green diesel. Why will he not do it?
If I adopt the approach as Minister for Finance of abolishing taxes and increasing spending, it does not get us to a good place as a country. That is why. It is not a sustainable economic policy to abolish that tax and increase public spending. We know where that will get us.
There are legitimate conversations we can have around windfall receipts and surpluses and around how to deploy them but the Deputy and I know that it is done in a one-off space. You do not do that in relation to more consistent measures and eroding the tax base would be doing a disservice to people in rural and urban Ireland as well.
The Deputy made the point - and I take it - that the farmer could not care whether it is carbon tax or not carbon tax; they just quite rightly care that the cost of green diesel is just too high. I accept that point but I would say back that they do not particularly care what lever we use to help them only that we help them. That is why is addition to the NORA levy and in addition to deciding not to proceed with the increase, we did also put in place a scheme. I accept the point from farmers and others that there needed to be a scheme and needed to be assistance. As the Deputy knows very well, we brought in a specific scheme - a fuel subsidy support scheme - under the Minister for agriculture's remit to assist farmers, agricultural contractors and fishers facing unprecedented increases in fuel payments. The payments will cover the months of March up until the end of July, which, as the Deputy knows, coincides with the peak fuel usage on farms. The scheme will provide around €20 million per month in supports, and it is worth approximately 20 cent per litre of marked gas oil, MGO. When that is combined that with the other measures, it is a significant, important and proportionate response as well. We have done some elements in relation to excise. Other than the carbon element, I admit there was not much to do. We did take action on the excise and on NORA and we have supplemented that with a 20 cent scheme that is worth roughly 20 cent per litre of MGO. That is the balanced approach we have taken to try to help.
It would cost €14 million a month to actually remove carbon tax from green diesel, the cost of which has gone through the roof for farmers. Talk to agricultural contractors and talk to ordinary farmers. Talk to the farmers who are telling me that this scheme, which we have not seen as the applications are not even open yet because this a Government that dithers, delays and only acts when it is pushed into things, is going to create more paperwork. What the Government will not listen to is that it has the ability to reduce the excise duty on green diesel at the pump for the farmer right now. It would cost €14 million a month in the context of a surplus of over €9 billion, money we are going to take in this year, and we are not going to spend.
The Tánaiste should not give me his guff about this breaking the economy. Supporting farmers is the right thing to do. It will not break the economy. Supporting farmers is what any responsible Government should be doing. The ability is here to support people in terms of the scale of this crisis but the Government is refusing to do it, and the reason it is refusing to do it is for the simple reason it is called carbon tax. Is that not the truth?
No, the truth of the matter is that Sinn Féin is isolated on this issue. We heard a lot about the united Opposition. We had a vote in the Dáil on this issue. Labour, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Government parties, the Government-supporting Independents, an overwhelming majority in the Dáil, believe that the Sinn Féin position is short-sighted, short-termed and populist-----
The people backed me and-----
The Deputy is getting like-----
Deputy Doherty-----
Talk to the people and the Tánaiste will get that message very clearly.
Deputy Doherty, allow the Tánaiste to conclude.
You are living in this bubble too long, Simon. Go and talk to ordinary people.
If the people backed Sinn Féin, the Deputy would not have been the Opposition's spokesperson on finance for 16 years. The people do not back Sinn Féin, so stop speaking-----
For the past two elections, we have had more seats that Fine Gael.
Deputy Doherty, please.
The Deputy is over there shouting and roaring for 16 years. He must be exhausted but while he is over there shouting and roaring, we are working with constructive people in opposition and constructive people in government to try to pull this country together. While Sinn Féin wants to cause chaos, we have taken measures to help farmers.
I think the Deputy would accept that the IFA represents farmers. It has been in the room and has welcomed this scheme. He can pooh-pooh it. He is not a farmer and neither am I.
The Minister needs to get his head out of the clouds and sand and talk to ordinary people. He can pontificate all he wants, point fingers at me and say I am isolated and people do not back me in here. I do not give a damn because I know that I am on the side of ordinary Irish people. I know that people are being pushed to the pin of their collar. I have met them on the streets and in homes across the State over the past number of weeks. I know they need action and leadership and they are not getting it from the Minister. That is what I am doing here. I am giving them a voice and I do not care who else is on my side because I know the side I am on. The Minister is on the wrong side.
The question people will ask me after this exchange will be how the fella across from me justifies €9 billion of a surplus. Last night I spoke to an elderly person in Galway who has no fuel in her tank to heat her home. Carers told me the old woman apologised to them because the house was so cold. At a time the Exchequer's coffers are bursting, people are going cold. That is not a republic that is worthy of the name. The Minister has the opportunity to change that and make a real difference for people, but he refuses to do so because he is too long in this bubble and is out of touch with ordinary people.
The Deputy is in a so-called bubble longer than me, but his anger might be making him forget that fact. He is in the bubble a long time. I am not sure who he thinks elects me to Dáil Éireann, but he should come to Wicklow and meet the people who have never not elected me. He should not give me guff about who represents the ordinary people. Everybody in here has a mandate and people who vote for everybody are ordinary people. The Deputy does not have a monopoly on that.
He likes to suggest that the Government has not acted. Objectively, and ordinary people know this, the Government has put in place one of the largest packages in Europe. We have reduced the cost of diesel at the pump by 32 cent per litre. We have reduced the cost of petrol by 27 cent per litre. We introduced a scheme for farmers, hauliers and fishers. We cannot just see this crisis through the today and tomorrow because the Deputy and I know it will not end today or tomorrow. We have to prepare for the time ahead and that is why we published a series of economic forecasts that show how the economy will grow and inflation will impact in three different scenarios. That allows us in here - constructive ideas are welcome - and outside of here to frame budget 2027 and begin to put in place measures to help people. We will do so and we will get through this and do more to support people.
We cannot do everything in the here and now. We certainly cannot abolish every tax. The Deputy does not want to just abolish the carbon tax. He wants to abolish the property tax. If we abolish, abolish, abolish, how do we fund public services and make sure we have the resources we need in the future? He cannot ask me to abolish every tax that he does not like and increase public spending.
I am not asking the Minister. He should not be stupid. He should not be silly.
We cannot do both.
234. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will consider the maximum removal of mineral oil tax on home heating oil given the substantial price increases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26927/26]
I am sure the Minister will not listen to this either.
I always listen.
He always listens. The last time the Minister listened the Government was trying to turn the Army on our own people. That is the listening. That is the reaction we got from Government.
There is one army.
Let me just say this here-----
Can both of you please address your remarks through the Chair and we might get through the questions?
Some 750,000 households across the State rely on home heating oil to heat their homes. Last night, at a public meeting attended by hundreds in Galway to discuss the cost-of-living crisis, I spoke to a carer who went into a home of an elderly woman. She worked all her life, paid her taxes and did everything right and apologised for the house being so cold because the heating had run out. The Minister refuses to cut excise duty on home heating oil to support household like hers, along with 750,000 other households. We have record surpluses of over €9 billion, yet the Government refuses to introduce a measure that would cost €14 million per month. Why is the Minister so out of touch? Why is he acting so Scrooge-like when he knows people are cold in their homes today because they cannot afford to heat them.
The Deputy cannot come in here and spend the surplus and then pursue a policy agenda that would have resulted in us never having it. We would not have had a surplus if we had followed his economic plan. It has been hard-won and earned by the Irish people and is there to be deployed in an appropriate manner and to make sure that the Deputy's children and mine never experience the austerity we experienced. It is there as an intergenerational support. The Deputy knows that. We put it into funds. They are not rainy day funds; they are funds to prepare for the changes and challenges the country will face in terms of demographics. They are funds to deliver infrastructure and climate projects. They are funds that are making a real difference.
The cost of home heating oil in this country is too high; of that there is no doubt. The energy crisis caused by the war has had a real impact. We have decided not to proceed with the carbon tax increase to assist in not making that situation worse. It is a fair comment. The Deputy asked me to suspend it and we did so because it is a proportionate response.
I do not want it suspended; I want it cancelled.
Fair enough. Once we do one thing, the Deputy wants us to do the next. He originally asked us to suspend it.
Please.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is my time so I am going to speak.
Go ahead.
I have been very clear that we do not rule out the need to make further energy interventions. An energy crisis in the months of April and May will be very different from an energy crisis in the months of October, November and December. We have to prepare for that period too. The fuel allowance is being provided to 470,000 households. I do not know the circumstances of the pensioner's home the Deputy was in last night, but I know many pensioners, including those most at risk of fuel poverty, people with a disability, carers and low-income working families now more than ever qualify for the fuel allowance. A typical household receiving the fuel allowance will have received €1,216 over the course of the fuel allowance season.
The carbon tax makes up 10% of the total cost of home heating oil based on figures from 16 April. We have extended the fuel allowance season by a further four weeks to assist people who are struggling to pay for their home heating oil and those most at risk of poverty and to help them offset some of those costs.
This is the problem. The Minister does not understand the scale of the crisis or the lived experience of many people across the State. Before we had a fuel crisis, 320,000 families could not pay their electricity bills. Families were pushed to the pin of the collar because of increases in grocery prices, rents and insurance and childcare costs that were like a second mortgage. A generation felt home ownership was outside of the reach because of Government policies. The fuel crisis, brought on by external factors, has tipped people over the edge. People expect the Government to respond.
I spoke to the Minister about an old woman to wear an extra jacket because she has no heating in her home. This is not an isolated incident. A young woman wrote to me to tell me she had no home heating oil for two weeks because she could not afford it on top of medical and childcare expenses. She wrote to me on the day the Government announced its latest package of half measures. She said for the first time in a long time she felt a sense of hope, like maybe the pressure might ease even slightly, but by the time she finished work and saw the news, that small glimmer of light was gone again. She said it is hard to describe how it feels. The Minister sits there and pats himself on the back. He said our budget surpluses have doubled. We have €4 billion extra that we never thought we would have, but an elderly woman has to put on a jacket because our house is cold and a woman who is married to a fella who works every hour that God sends cannot afford heat in her home. There is something seriously wrong in this republic when people are left like that.
The Deputy suggests the Government does not take action to endeavour to assist people. That is his mantra. That is air enough. That is what he says but it is not true. There are other facts.
We are presiding over a country where the average weekly wage is over €1,000. They are not my figures; they are from the CSO. Every working day in this country 200 new jobs are being created. The long-term unemployment rate is at around 1%, an historic low. We announced a package of €750 million to directly help people, including the person to whom the Deputy referred. We have reduced the cost of filling a car relative to what it would have been, extended the fuel allowance, supported key sectors of the economy and, crucially, introduced measures that are reducing inflation. It would have been higher by 0.6% a month were not for the measures we have taken.
In our latest budget we provided the largest ever increases in areas such as the child support payment. We are prioritising those most in need. The Deputy said I do not understand the scale of the problem. I am not sure he understands it. No government in the world can fully insulate its country from the economic impact of this war. We cannot look at this through the prism of today or tomorrow. We have to look at this in terms of preparing for the time ahead because if we do not keep our powder dry and instead do everything that comes into the Deputy's mind today or tomorrow that might make us popular in the short term but it sure as hell will not keep the people of this country safe in the months ahead.
The Tánaiste's mantra again speaks to me of the fact that he does not understand where people are at. Does the Tánaiste think the woman who wrote to me does not know what she is earning? Of course she knows what she is earning but she also knows that the cost of electricity has gone through the roof. She also knows that the weekly shop is a lot more expensive than it was last week, that the cost of childcare is another mortgage and that rents are increasing. Now she also knows that her house is cold for two weeks because she cannot afford to heat her home.
I am not asking the Tánaiste to spend all of the €9.1 billion surplus. Rather, I am asking him to do what a responsible Minister for Finance would do when he or she sees that citizens are suffering and in crisis - to show leadership and act to support them. The Tánaiste can do that. He can cut excise duty on home heating oil today. It would cost €14 million - not billion – per month. The Tánaiste refuses to do it, however. It would make a real difference to her and so many others like her but the Tánaiste refuses to do it. He is seriously out of touch with where public opinion is at on this.
The Deputy is seriously out of touch in terms of the scale of the economic challenge facing the world right now. The Deputy’s position on this is to ask for more and more money to be spent every day. Maybe that is what one does when one is in opposition. In fairness, not all Opposition parties do that, but maybe that is what the Deputy’s party does when it is in opposition. The Deputy is ignoring the fact that he would not be able to speak to any of my European counterparts who has done more. If he brings in Rachel Reeves or asks the finance ministers in Germany, France or Italy - he can pick any country - he will learn that we have taken more action than almost any other European country per head of population, and rightly so because we have run the economy well. If the Deputy were sitting on this side of the House - thankfully the people have not put him here the last number of times they were asked – we would not have the surpluses that he now demands we spend. We have to take this step by step. That is not a mantra; it is a fact. It is the best advice available to me. Asking me to do more on heating during the summer months when I have to prepare for the winter months is not a sensible thing. This is about actually-----
What is she supposed to do? Should she wear another jacket or tighten her belt? What advice do you have? Should she put on another coat?
If you accept that the fuel allowance is a payment, albeit one you want to blow a hole in through the carbon tax-----
That is nonsense.
Ignoring that, if you accept that the fuel allowance is an important way of helping the people most at risk of fuel poverty, which I think is your position in the North-----
Are you saying they are just stupid and not managing their budgets? What are you saying?
The only step the Sinn Féin Minister of Finance in the North has taken is a very small step towards a smaller version of the fuel allowance. You are in government in the North.
They cannot afford their heat.
You have the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy-----
They cannot afford their heat.
-----but you are not doing anything to help in the North at all. People need to look at how you say one thing down here and you do another thing up there.
You need to have a bit of cop-on.
It is complete hypocrisy.
You know that excise duty cannot be reduced in the North.
There is lots you could do.
Do not be stupid. You know that. Do not let yourself down.
There is lots you could do.
For God's sake, you know that the North does not have taxation powers.
Deputy Doherty, address your remarks through the Chair. Have a bit of respect for other Members in terms of how you address them. There is an appropriate way to do that. You might engage with and check the Standing Orders as well so that when you come in here, you understand that you are governed by certain Standing Orders.
235. Deputy Shay Brennan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance his response to concerns regarding changes to rules governing hearings at the Tax Appeals Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27129/26]
My question concerns the proposed changes to hearings of the Tax Appeals Commission, particularly the removal of the taxpayers' automatic right to a private hearing. It will instead become a matter of discretion for the commissioner. Is the Tánaiste concerned that this change will deter taxpayers from exercising their right to appeal a Revenue assessment?
I thank both Deputy Brennan and the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach for their engagement on this matter. The revised general scheme of the finance (tax appeals and fiscal responsibility) Bill was published in November of last year. Head 5 of the general scheme concerns necessary amendments arising from the 2021 Supreme Court judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fact that all hearings before an adjudication officer were not held in public was inconsistent with the Constitution. A number of amendments are necessary to ensure the Tax Appeals Commission complies with that judgment.
It is important to say that the proposed changes will not remove the possibility of private hearings at the Tax Appeals Commission. Appeals commissioners will have discretion on whether to accept a request for an appeal to be heard in private, but they must consider whether privacy is necessary for that appeal to proceed. As such, there will remain the option of a private hearing where this is necessary for the appeal to proceed on a fair and just basis. I can think of many examples where it would be necessary for an appeal to be in private.
The finance (tax appeals and fiscal responsibility) Bill remains under pre-legislative scrutiny at this time. I assure the Deputy that we will consider the matters raised by stakeholders – I have met a number of them through the Irish Tax Institute - and those of the members of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach in advance of publication of the Bill.
The proposed Bill seeks to give appeals commissioners discretion to direct whether an appeal hearing is held in public or in private. This amendment is being proposed based on advice received from the Office of the Attorney General. It is anticipated that a greater number of appeals will be heard in public following the enactment of this Bill. However, appellants will still be able to request that an appeal is held in private. The grounds for that will include maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information and protecting an individual's right to respect for their private and family life.
As I stated earlier, I am open to further engagement on this. I do not wish to prejudge what the pre-legislative scrutiny might say but I imagine it may require further legal engagement with the Office of the Attorney General. If there is a way of nuancing this or providing further clarity, I am very open to that because I want to get this right. I must, however, be truthful about the Supreme Court consideration. I am open to engaging and trying to get this right. I look forward to the report from pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Tánaiste will appreciate that the right to challenge a Revenue assessment is a fundamental protection for every taxpayer, but this right has little value if exercising it carries an unacceptable personal or commercial cost. If public exposure alone is enough to deter a taxpayer from pursuing a legitimate appeal, we risk undermining the entire system.
It is worth noting that 20% of determinations of the Tax Appeals Commission were found in favour of the appellant. Those taxpayers were of course correct to appeal. Under the proposed change, they would likely forgo their right to do so. Is the Tánaiste able to confirm whether the Department plans to carry out any assessment of the impact of these changes on taxpayers’ rights before this is progressed further?
The position as of now is that we have been endeavouring to comply with the Supreme Court judgment. Following that judgment, the view from the Office of the Attorney General was that there were proposals that we needed to make changes to the tax appeal system, specifically around the request for appeals to be held in private as well as the determination of appeals in the absence of a hearing. It is important that there are clear safeguards in place and clear grounds that an appeals commissioner must take account of. No one wants their sensitive and private information in the public domain; I understand that. There are issues that could cause harm to the public interest, such as sensitive information or information relating to public order and national security. The anticipation is not to have a significant jump in appeals being heard in public, nor do we wish to make it a deterrent. The right to appeal is important. The Revenue Commissioners have significant power and there must be a right to appeal.
While I do not wish to pre-empt the process, from following the hearings and listening to what is being said during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, including from stakeholders such as the Irish Tax Institute, I hope to give further consideration to this Bill, which includes engaging further with the Office of the Attorney General from a legal point of view to determine whether there is an ability to nuance further. I have to be cognisant of the Supreme Court judgment, however.
The Tánaiste might appreciate that there is potentially a significant and expensive unintended consequence of this. As he is fully aware, Ireland’s attractiveness as a location for multinational investment depends significantly on our tax policy, particularly the certainty and fairness we apply to taxation matters. The Tánaiste may be aware that a risk review of 20 EU member states showed that all provided rights to private tax appeal hearings. The changes proposed in Ireland would leave us very much exposed as an outlier. For multinational companies weighing up where to invest, the confidentiality of their business affairs and tax proceedings matters greatly. A system that risks public exposure for disputing a Revenue assessment is unlikely to be viewed favourably by these multinationals. Given the magnitude and importance of corporation tax receipts to our public finances, how has the Tánaiste considered the significant risk to Ireland’s reputation as a competitive tax jurisdiction if this change to our tax appeals process is progressed?
Obviously, making sure Ireland remains a competitive location for foreign direct investment, FDI, is an important consideration. I will reflect further on that on foot of the Deputy raising it. In looking at what other parts of the world do, we see that Canada, England and Australia operate in a similar environment to what the current legislation, as currently drafted, proposes for our tax appeals system. New Zealand is an exception where tax appeals are not open to the public. Across the EU, there is a significant variety across tax appeals bodies but it is certainly not uncommon to have a system where appeals are public in the first instance and then held in private at the discretion of an appellant for a stated reason.
In 2025, 1,192 new appeals were received and 1,286 cases were closed. A total of 237 appeals were scheduled for hearing in 2025, of which 93 subsequently proceeded.
It is very common for appeals to be settled, withdrawn or consolidated with other appeals, or indeed, dismissed in advance of any hearing taking place. We will give this further consideration. We will take the recommendations seriously from pre-legislative scrutiny. However, the question is how we can be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling and how we get that balance right.
